That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that direct, personal insults to Generals on the ground during a time of war are treasonous. It's one thing to disagree with strategy -- nevermind the fact that the libs are woefully unqualified to play a board game of Stratego, much less second-guess US military commanders. That's not what the libs are doing. The libs are attacking his CHARACTER. Totally unacceptable. Oh well, won't matter much anyway, given tomorrow's news... brace yourselves. I bid good night to you, fine friends!
...expect to see the words 'backfire' and 'smear tactics' quite a bit in the Obama camp's rebuttal... They'll try to shape reaction to this as much as possible... and of course many news stations are in the tank for them and will try to promote this dodge... Perhaps an attempt at making the argument that she's saying "why'd he" instead of "whitey"? Can't wait, friends!
So, you're basing your hope on statements like this: Roger Stone (one of the FL "rioters") on Fox News: I now believe the tape exists; and I believe a network has it... if this pans out to be true... A rumor of a tape apparently started with this blog post: Followed by this one: Further posts at the same blog reference the Stone comments on Fox News as evidence that the rumor started on the blog are true... so the circle jerk continues. There may be some tape out there, but hoping for it based on this evidence seems a bit delusional. We'll see what goes up on No Quarter tomorrow before 0900 . My guess is it will be more rumors of such a tape...with the goal of making the rumor as much a fact as possible. EDIT: Yes, I know Johnson claims to be a Clinton supporter, but his audience is pure wing nuts.
If you removed the word "traitor" from the discussion, does anybody see at least a hint of logic in T_J's position? Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it. Colonials could streak in protest of King George and he wouldn't hear about it for months-- if ever. Now when some artist in New Hampshire wants to insult the President with an unflattering portrait, he has a shot at getting on CNN where his 45 seconds of fame will be re-run 17 times in the next 24 hours and then find a permanent home in the YouTube museum and the blogosphere. Of course the enemy sees this as well. Is that artist's self-satisfaction to do what is his/her right to do nearly as important as the damage it may do? Admittedly it is hard to measure the damage, but is there any kind of doubt that indeed damage is done? Does s/he still have the right even if they don't exercise it? Of course they do. There seems to be some kind of use it or lose it thought process here that I don't think applies.
Here was my initial comment: "Personally, I had enough evidence in 1999. I prefer a president that can reliably form a sentence. But thats just me." I didn't make any sort of distinction between the word debate or record. My point is that not only am I allowed to second guess the president, but it is my constitutional DUTY to second guess him. To suggest that we are not allowed to second guess the president to a silly silly silly argument and defies everything that makes America a great country. If you want to live in a country where you are not allowed to second guess politicians, then go move to Cuba or China ...but they won't have you.
Since you're now trolling in two threads, let me copy my response from the other. We were promised something by 0900. It's now past 0700 on the west coast... and this is what we have... more rumor. Where are the facts TJ?
You don't need to make a distinction between debate or record because it exists by definition when you specified 1999! I get your drift but can you point out to me in the Constitution where it is your duty to second-guess the President? I would never say that there is no time or place for dissent. In fact I would clearly say there is a time and place for dissent.... it's just not anywhere or all the time... ... especially in a time of war when propoganda becomes especially damaging. Just because you can protest or complain doesn't mean that you should. How would that work in your marriage? Like it or not when you elect a president, you are "married to" him/her for four years.
Well, at least you have a plan, which is more than one can say for either Hillary or Obama! I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by it however- it's certainly not victory, for the US, much less the Iraqis. It's also a plan based on on an outdated view of the war. it certainly would have been an option in 2006, but not now , nearly half-way through 2008, when the situation on the ground has changed radically. [rquoter]Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). <snip> If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success. [/rquoter] even Andrew Sullivan and the French get what's happening, and Andrew understands who should get the credit: [rquoter]The trap Obama must not be caught in is one of excessive pessimism. Conditions now favor expeditious withdrawal more than they did only a few months ago. But the manner of withdrawal, its pace, and its concomitant diplomacy now require a different cast, and may require an even different one next February and March. None of this means that this war was not a mistake; it does suggest it need not in the medium term be a catastrophe. Petraeus deserves the lion’s share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped.But Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure. Obama needs to capitalize on these gains, not dismiss them.[/rquoter] [rquoter]BAGHDAD (AFP) — French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday that the security situation in Iraq was improving and reaffirmed France's willingness to help rebuild the war-ravaged country. "I have the feeling that things are better. Statistics show a drop in security incidents," Kouchner told AFP after a working lunch with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari on the last day of his two-day visit to Iraq. There is "an improvement in the situation in Iraq," he said. Kouchner also voiced satisfaction at efforts by the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, saying they were making "progress."[/rquoter] Of course, we're already working on the ground to indterdict the flow of iranian arms and agents. unfortunately, there are no large scale incursions to "bomb the crap out of", and in any case i find your faith that threats will deter either Iran or Syria bizarre in the face of what we went through in Iraq in the 15 month run-up to the invasion. but i admire the strong words, which is more than Obama can offer. This would be great, if the Iraqi government were benefiting from the rise in oil prices, but i've seen no evidence to suggest it is So you agree that Iran and Syria are continued threats to the US and American interests? how odd then that you'd want to defer actually doing anything about it. i'm highly dubious that there's be more support for a President Obama to take action against either state, and it's clear he no concept of what we're fighting against. but he could do worse than adopt your plan.
Rim, you're pretty invested in the defeat of America in this war, so much so that you intentionally slander the in-theater commander. What is that the definition of? certainly not patrioutism- your "dissent" is nothing but political masturbation.
I find it interesting that you are so concerned with my patriotism that you have this deep-seated need to keep telling me what patriotism is not. This is particularly fascinating coming from a person who does not agree with principles Jefferson put forth in the Declaration of Independence. And using "masturbation" in that way has become a tired, tired cliche... like many of your posts.
OK, it's now past 0900 on the west coast. Where's my tape of Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan? Oh, here's what the blogs say: This is weak, even for you TJ.
